Chennai Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
D.Thiruvengadam Vs. D.Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the order and decretal order made in C.M.P.No.2387 of 2007 in A.S.No.548 of 2005, dated 08.07.2009 on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.J U D G M E N T1. The appellants 2 to 5 in A.S.No.548 of 2005 on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are the petitioners. The second respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.4798 of 1997 on the file of the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court Chennai against the first respondent herein for recovery of possession of the suit property and that suit was decreed as prayed for.2. The first respondent herein filed A.S.No.548 of 2005 before the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and in that appeal, the revision petitioners herein got themselves impleaded as appellants 2 to 5 as per order passed in C.M.P.No.2025 of 2006 dated 25.09.2006. Thereafter the revision petitioners filed C.M.P.No.2385 of 2007 u...
thennavan. Vs. Marikannu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.07.1999 in A.S.No.76 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 28.08.1997 in O.S.No.194 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nannilam.J U D G M E N T1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.07.1999 in A.S.No.76 of 1998 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 28.08.1997 in O.S.No.194 of 1996 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Nannilam.2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.76 of 1998 (filed by the Respondent/Defendant) dated 07.07.1999 has among other things observed that the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of injunction on the ground that in earlier suit in O.S.No.38 of 91, it has been found that...
Dr.R.Kannapiran Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned proceedings vide G.O.(D).No.969 dated 30.09.2010 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as null and void and against the principles of natural justice and consequently, direct the respondents herein to settle the terminal benefit with effect from 31.05.2008 with all service and monetary benefits with interest payable under the law in force.O R D E R1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the first respondent dated 30.09.2010, imposing the punishment of cut of of Rs.2,000/- per month from the pension amount to be paid to the petitioner for a period of two years, for the charges framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.2. The factual scenario of the case leading to the filing of this writ petition is to be narrated as hereun...
R.Raghavan Vs. the Branch Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Corporation to permit the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,01,053/- along with 6% simple interest under the OTS Scheme, to settle the loan account No.7199-0605 and pass such orders.O R D E R1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the the Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation, to accept a sum of Rs.2,01,053/- (Rupees two lakhs one thousand and fifty three only) along with 6% simple interest towards full and final settlement of outstanding amount under the OTS Scheme. The memo of parties shows that the petitioner has not impleaded The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) as party, though a necessary party.2 The petitioner availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only), which was secured by mortgage of immovable proper...
Ms.Visaka Industries Limited Vs. Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records comprised in stay order No.813/2011 dated 8.12.2011 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to hear the appeal without insisting the pre-deposit and pass order in accordance with law.O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the stay order No.813/2011, dated 8.12.2011, on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (South Zonal Bench), Chennai, the first respondent herein, and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner, in Appeal No.E/423&422/09, without insisting on the petitioner making the pre-deposit and to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordan...
Tvl.Kalaiqueenee Agencies Vs. the Special Committee.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in S.C.P.No.75/2011 ref.No.M1/12035/2011 dated 4.11.2011, and quash the same as being contrary to the principle of natural justice and that of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the Judgment reported in 136 STC Page No.302 (M/s.Jayam Traders Vs. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and others).O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not provided with the copies of the records, said to have been recovered by the second respondent, during the inspection of the place of the business of the petitioner, on 4.11.2003, relating to the transactions for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04.3. It has been stated that t...
Janamejeyam Vs. Sivaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, in O.S.No.70 of 2005.JUDGMENT1. This appeal is filed by the defendant in the suit as against the judgment and decree dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, in O.S.No.70 of 2005, which was filed for partition.2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Despite printing the names of the respondents, after due service, they did not choose to enter appearance. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant.4. A thumbnail sketch of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:(i) The plaintiffs, three in number, filed the suit as against their father for partition, seeking 3/4th share in favour of them, in respect of the suit properties, alleging that those properties happened to be the ...
V.T.R.Palanlisamy Chettiar Vs. V.T.R.Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.11.2006 made in AS.No.77/2005 by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-I) Salem, reversing the Judgement and Decree dated 22.4.2004 made in OS.No.228/2003 by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem.JUDGEMENT1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Plaintiff, against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.11.2006 made in AS.No.77/2005 by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-I) Salem, reversing the Judgement and Decree dated 22.4.2004 made in OS.No.228/2003 by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem.2. It is not necessary to set out the facts elaborately leading to filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The Appellant/plaintiff filed the above said suit for declaration of his absolute title to the suit property and for delivery of possession and for mesne profits. The Trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession and further relegated the determinat...
Gurusamy Vs. State Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
PrayerAppeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Judgment dated 7.9.2000 made in S.C.No.245 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai and set aside the same.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.DEVADASS ,J)1. Appellant is accused in S.C.No.245 of 1998, in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.2. He challenges his conviction under Section 302 IPC and the life sentence.3. For the sake of convenience, through out this judgment, we shall describe him as accused.4. The prosecution case in brief is as under:-(i). Muthuirulan (P.W.3) and Sundaram are brothers. Sundaram and Avudaiyammal are spouses. Their son is Karuppaiah. After Sundaram's death Avudaiyammal married P.W.3. They have brought up Karuppaiah. P.W.3's another brother's son is Muniyandi (P.W.4). P.W.3's another brother's son is accused Gurusamy. Selvakani (P.W.1) married P.W.3's son Ganesan. All are residing in nearby houses in Keelapatti, near Perai...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation. Vs. MS.Hafeez Motor Transport
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 8(2) of ESI Act, 1948, against the order and decretal order of the ESI Court (Labour Court), Madurai, passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.32 of 2010 dated 18.05.2011.JUDGMENT1. Challenging the order dated 18.05.2011 passed by the E.S.I.Court (Labour Court), Madurai, in E.S.I.O.P.No.32 of 2010, reducing the quantum of damages awarded under section 85B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, has filed the present appeal.2. The case, in brief, is as follows:The respondent, viz., M/s.Hafeez Motor Transport is a registered partnership firm and is engaged in the small business of transport operating mofussil and city bus service in and around Pudukottai area. The respondent is having 18 employees under various categories. The respondent has covered all the eligible employees under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act ('ESI Act') and had been remitting both employees and employer ESI contributions to ...